The most obvious thing about the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a Louisiana law that would have shuttered two of the state’s three remaining abortion clinics is that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who stopped that from happening. Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal justices to deliver a 5-4 majority that maintains the status quo, for now, and keeps the clinics open.

What is perhaps less obvious, at least at first glance, is the level of intellectual dishonesty baked into a four-page dissent penned by the court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

When Judges Defy the Supreme Court
The chief justice faces a time of great testing, both of himself and of the institution he heads, as the lower courts move rapidly even to his right.
Linda Greenhouse

By Linda Greenhouse, Contributing Opinion Writer
Feb. 14, 2019

No, I wasn’t surprised last week, as most people apparently were, when Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding fifth vote to preserve access to abortion in Louisiana for at least a little while longer. In fact, I had predicted it (and I have witnesses).

Why? Not because I think the chief justice has developed a soft spot in his heart for the right to abortion. He has not. Not because he wants to minimize the Supreme Court’s role as a combatant in the culture wars. I think he does, but that’s not the point.

Rather, circumstances compelled the chief justice to stand up to a stunning act of judicial defiance.

A so-called victory shows how the Supreme Court will kill ‘Roe v. Wade’

By Leah Litman
February 8 2019

The Supreme Court gave reproductive justice advocates an unexpected win on Thursday night when it voted 5 to 4 to stay a court of appeals’ decision that could have closed abortion clinics in Louisiana. The chief justice joined the four more liberal justices in voting to prevent the Louisiana law from going into effect. That small achievement underscores how much progressives stand to lose with the new court and how low our standards for victory have become.

At issue in June Medical Services v. Gee is a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the providers perform abortions. Just two and a half years ago, the Supreme Court held that very same requirement unconstitutional when Texas enacted it.

The Abortion Wars Have Become a Fight Over Science
Forty-six years after Roe, the two camps increasingly disagree on basic facts about abortion — and who has the authority to determine them.

By Mary Ziegler
Jan. 22, 2019

It was perhaps, at first glance, an unusual feature of the 2019 March for Life that it downplayed what many have come to think of as the central claim of the anti-abortion movement: that the unborn have a constitutional right to life.

Instead, march organizers focused on proclaiming that science was on their side. They circulated material on “when human life begins,” whether abortions are ever medically necessary and when fetal life becomes viable. They praised legal restrictions based on what science supposedly says about fetal pain.

4 Independent Abortion Provider Staffers Open Up About Their Work & What Keeps Them Going

By Madhuri Sathish
Dec 17, 2018

Ever since Donald Trump assumed the presidency, the restrictions on abortion access have only been exacerbated. Many states have had to contend with abortion clinic closures, and conservative lawmakers continuously try to use religious exemptions, strict time limits, and financial threats to effectively make abortions impossible to access. But even as state legislatures attempt to crack down on abortion rights, independent abortion providers across the country tell Bustle that they have remained on the frontlines of reproductive justice work, despite the mounting challenges.

The Last Clinics Standing
These six states show how the Supreme Court could end abortion access without overruling Roe v. Wade

by Jessica Arons
Oct 22, 2018

Following Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, there was much discussion about the future of reproductive rights in the United States and whether his appointment could result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. While that prospect remains a real threat, abortion could be made as good as illegal for millions of people long before that happens.

In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down abortion restrictions that would have closed most abortion clinics in Texas. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in that case. With Kavanaugh confirmed as his replacement, the court could use the next abortion-rights case to eviscerate abortion access without explicitly overruling Roe.

Abortion Rights Got Two Important Legal Wins Last Week
Decisions from federal courts in Kentucky and Virginia protecting abortion access could not come at a more crucial time for reproductive rights.

Oct 1, 2018
Jessica Mason Pieklo

A federal court in Kentucky on Friday struck back at conservative efforts to restrict abortion access, ruling as unconstitutional a state law requiring abortion clinics to have written transfer agreements with ambulance services and hospitals.

At issue in the lawsuit is a 1998 law that requires abortion clinics have “transfer and transport” agreements with a hospital and ambulance service in the event a medical emergency were to take place at the abortion clinic.

A Dire Situation for Women: The Future of Roe’s Legal Protections if Judge Kavanaugh Joins the Supreme Court
Fact Sheets

Aug 28, 2018

President Trump promised to nominate only Supreme Court justices who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade, and his nominee Brett Kavanaugh has ruled to restrict women’s access to abortion. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would change the balance of the Supreme Court against access to abortion. Whether the newly constituted Court would overturn Roe or profess to uphold the right to abortion while severely undermining it, the result would be dire for women in this country.

Overturning Roe
If Judge Kavanaugh joins the Court and rules to overturn Roe v. Wade, women could be criminalized and punished in our country for having an abortion.

Abstract: Resisting both physical attacks and widespread policy proscriptions, mission-driven abortion care providers continue working to help their patients.

“Some will rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen.” This line from an old Woody Guthrie song is an apt description of the vulnerability of abortion providers in the United States. Clinics have long been subject to physical attacks: eleven individuals have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists, thousands more have been terrorized at their homes and offices, and numerous clinics have been vandalized, even destroyed by fire-bombings. More recently, a harsh new regulatory regime—Guthrie’s “pen”—comprising onerous restrictions passed by state legislatures and hostile inspections by health departments threaten the ability of providers to keep their facilities open and to sustain their vision of “woman-centered” care. As a longtime abortion clinic administrator told me, “Regulatory interference is the new frontier of the anti-abortion movement.”

Texas abortion providers challenge restrictive state laws in new lawsuit

By Alison Durkee
June 15, 2018

Abortion providers in Texas filed a sweeping lawsuit against the state Thursday, targeting dozens of state laws that restrict access to abortion.

The lawsuit, filed by Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, Fund Texas Choice, the Lilith Fund and other organizations against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, comes two years after the U.S. Supreme Court case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. That ruling struck down two other Texas abortion laws, ruling that they imposed an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.